R. v. Safi Date:, 2011 BCPC 406

Citation: R. v. Safi Date: 20111123 2011 BCPC 0406 File No: 184232-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ABDUL NASER SAFI REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE K. W. BALL Counsel for the Crown: W. Skolrood Counsel for the Defendant: G.J. Dykstra Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C.

Date of Hearing: November 23, 2011 Date of Judgment: November 23, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Before me today is Abdul Naser Safi who is charged that on the 24th day of June 2010, in Surrey, he was driving a vehicle, knowing he was prohibited from driving a vehicle, pursuant to s. 93 of the Motor Vehicle Act , contrary to s. 95(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Mr. Safi acknowledged that he was driving a motor vehicle on the 24th day of June 2010. [ 2 ] Initially in this case a letter was sent to Mr. Safi, which he acknowledges receiving, which is entitled "Notice of Intent to Prohibit".

In this case the Superintendent was informing Mr. Safi of his intent to prohibit him from driving, pursuant to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act , for a period of four months due to an unsatisfactory driving record which was attached to the letter. Mr. Safi had two options; he could accept the prohibition or he could ask for a review of the prohibition. [ 3 ] He came to the conclusion that what he was doing was appealing something and he wrote a letter, which is Exhibit 2, saying: I am writing to appeal the decision made to suspend my driver's licence. I'm appealing it for the following reasons: 1.

I am not a threat to the safety of the public. I am waiting on a letter from my H.R. department from work, as well as some other supporting documentation from the officer who served me with this ticket. [ 4 ] Now, it is the last part of that line dealing with the officer who served the ticket that we have heard nothing further about. The

letter from his "H.R." department simply described what he did for employment and I frankly do not know how that would have any affect whatsoever on the Superintendent's decision which is based on the unsatisfactory driving record, which was set out in Exhibit 2. Mr. Safi, in his letter, gives no indication of when, if ever, he intends to provide the letter from his H.R. department. [ 5 ] On the 27th of May 2010, a letter is written to Mr. Safi by the reviewing officer from Licensing Support Services who says: I'm writing in response to your submission concerning your prohibition from driving. I have been delegated the authority under

Section 117 of the Motor Vehicle Act to consider your submission and make a decision concerning this prohibition from driving. In your submission you indicated you would be receiving a letter from your H.R. department... And I'm paraphrasing: ...and you would forward this for review on May 11th. Due to this information I decided to delay my review until today's date so that I could consider them. I note, however, you have not forwarded these documents to our office. Therefore, I have made my decision based on the information I currently have before me.

Your driving record indicates that you received ten offences and two 24-hour prohibitions from driving between May 6, 2005, and February 22, 2010. Your record of 24-hour prohibitions indicates the use of alcohol and other substances while driving. Driving under the influence of alcohol or a drug other than alcohol is a considerable public safety concern, and drivers who incur alcohol or drug- related offences are exhibiting unsatisfactory driving habits. I take these prohibitions as evidence you drove on these occasions while your ability to do so was affected by alcohol or another substance.

The occurrence of such offences is highly correlated with future accident risk. I must also consider your driving history which indicates you have previously been prohibited from driving. And then he says: As a result of this review , I am confirming your prohibition from driving. The term of this prohibition will remain at four months. So there cannot be any doubt that as of that date Mr. Safi was prohibited from driving in British Columbia. [ 6 ] Mr. Safi wrote again to ICBC, and it is Exhibit 4.

That letter deals with tickets that resulted in 24-hour driving prohibitions and other facts, or what he alleged to be facts.

There is no mention of anything coming from the H.R. department. [ 7 ] Then the next occurrence is a letter, apparently dated May 31st, 2010, a letter which indicates that he was depending on his vehicle for his duties as an employee of the bank, and that is marked as Exhibit 5. [ 8 ] Exhibit 6, which is dated the same day, is the document from ICBC that was referred to in the letter confirming the driving prohibition indicating that: Your driving record and letter have been considered in response to the Notice of Intent, and based on that consideration I hereby notify you that you are prohibited from driving a motor vehicle under s. 93 of the Motor Vehicle Act for a term of four months.

It goes on to say Mr. Safi must surrender his driver's licence and that all driver's licenses issued to him have been cancelled. [ 9 ] Exhibit 7 then is the document that we have all reviewed, which is the Notice of Prohibition because Mr. Safi did not acknowledge the Notice of Prohibition in Exhibit 6. He was served by a peace officer with a Notice of Prohibition with Exhibit 7, and among other things, that document reads: You are hereby notified that you are prohibited from driving a motor vehicle by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

This prohibition commences immediately on the service of this notice unless a later time for the commencement is noted on the face of this notice under the title "Temporary Driver's Licence" below. The basis for and duration of the prohibition is indicated by the marked box. The box indicates that Mr. Safi’s prohibition is under s. 93(1)(a)(ii) for a duration of four months. The document continues, and it says: All British Columbia driver's licenses which have been issued to you are cancelled without refunding the fee.

The Motor Vehicle Act requires that your driver's licence or any document issued in another jurisdiction that allows you to drive a motor vehicle must immediately be surrendered to the person serving this notice. And that is what happened; Mr. Safi’s driver's licence was attached. And the document carries on under the heading "Temporary Driver's Licence": This notice acts as a temporary driver's licence until it expires at 2:00 a.m. on the 10th of June 2010, and the prohibition from driving shall commence immediately upon the expiration of the temporary driver's licence.

So at the expiration of this temporary licence on the 10th of June 2010, I find as a fact that Mr. Safi was aware that he was prohibited from driving. Mr. Safi did not have a driver's licence, neither his regular driver's licence nor a temporary driver's licence. [ 10 ] That is confirmed by the document which we have as Exhibit 8, which is the document dated August 17th, 2010, from the Driver Intervention Program simply saying that Mr. Safi’s prohibition remains in force. It is not a new appeal and something of that sort.

I find it interesting, the document which is referred to as somehow being of assistance to him dated August the 13th, 2010, which is marked as Exhibit 10, says: At this time our records indicate this customer has a hold status on their British Columbia driving record due to an outstanding prohibition.

The wording of that document is very clear, that the driver is prohibited. The document also states: "If this customer wishes to apply, renew or reinstate a driver's licence in British Columbia." Clearly at that stage the prohibition is noted as existing in the records of ICBC. [ 11 ] And finally, Exhibit 9 is the significant document in this case. Mr. Martin, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, has, in the Certificate of Superintendent, specified that as of the 24th of June 2010, Mr.

Safi was prohibited from driving a motor vehicle, and that prohibition was in effect for the entire day of June 24th, 2010. [ 12 ] I appreciate the very capable submissions that Mr. Dykstra has made, Mr. Safi, but I am not satisfied that your suggestion that you phoned ICBC and someone told you you could drive was either accurate or somehow meaningful in this case.

You had the documentation that told you you could not drive, you ignored it, you continued to drive, and I am satisfied that the defence of honest but mistaken belief is not made out here on the facts. [ 13 ] I find that the Crown has proven on the documents its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and I find you guilty as charged. (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)